MZ Ventures Ltd v Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-627

[2023] NZHC 864

BETWEEN
MZ VENTURES LTD

First Applicant

DTB SOLUTIONS LTD
Second Applicant

CHANTILLY ESTATE LTD
Third Applicant

AND

MUBASHIR HUSSAIN SHAH

First Respondent

JENHASH CONTRACTING AND CONSULTANTS LTD

Second Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)
20 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 April 2023 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Newton Law (Auckland) for Applicants

MZ VENTURES LTD v SHAH [2023] NZHC 864 [20 April 2023]

[1] On 6 April 2023, the applicants applied without notice for freezing orders against funds held in a BNZ bank account in the name of the second respondent. Related orders were also sought.

[2]Affidavits were filed in support.

[3] The application was reviewed by Peters J on 6 April 2023. Her Honour declined to grant the application on a without notice basis and directed service.

[4] I now have a memorandum of counsel for the applicants seeking to revive the without notice application. There is also a without notice application for substituted service. Further affidavits have been filed.

[5] Having read the memorandum and the affidavits, I find, on the balance of probabilities:

(a)The first respondent has left the country.

(b)The respondents have a case to answer that they have fraudulently misapplied money.

(c)The respondents were emailed the Court documents on 10 April 2023 and received them.

[6]Under these circumstances, I make the following orders:

(a)Service was effected on the first and second respondents when the director of the first applicant emailed the required documents to the first and second respondents on 10 April 2023; and

(b)The application for orders filed on 6 April 2023 is granted.

[7] Leave is reserved to any of the parties to apply on notice to vary or rescind these orders.

Brewer J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of MZ Ventures Ltd and others versus Mubashir Hussain Shah and Jenhash Contracting and Consultants Ltd was heard and decided. The applicants, comprising three companies, sought freezing orders against funds held in a bank account belonging to the second respondent. They also sought related orders to address their claims against the respondents. The primary dispute involved allegations of fraudulent misapplication of money by the respondents.

The court was required to decide whether the applicants had established a strong likelihood that the respondents had fraudulently misapplied money, thereby justifying the granting of freezing orders without prior notice to the respondents. The court also needed to determine whether service of the court documents on the respondents had been effectively executed, as this was a critical procedural requirement for the applicants to revive their without notice application.

Brewer J reviewed the memorandum of counsel and the affidavits submitted by the applicants. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the first respondent had left the country, that the respondents had a case to answer regarding the fraudulent misapplication of funds, and that the respondents had indeed received the court documents via email on 10 April 2023. Given these findings, the court determined that service of the documents on the respondents was effective and granted the application for orders that had been initially filed on 6 April 2023. The court also reserved leave for any party to apply to vary or rescind these orders on notice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established